Very interesting question Chris..worthy of it's own thread. i think Louis would have had a better evening vs Moore than he did with Charles. Charles was superior to Moore as a lightheavy, and as a heavy. I think Louis would have had a chance..a real chance of salvaging a late ko, like he did vs Walcott in their rematch.

I particularly like this. I may use it - with the proper credits, of course:

Fear not, those Hagler and Barkley (and Buchanan) jibes were just illustrative. Those form some of the constituent that is Duran's top ten placing.

I'm sure Duran hit fairly hard at middleweight, although I would contend the notion that he was a pound-for-pound better hitter than Moore - not that you were implying this - due to Moore's numerous stoppages of boxers (some decent, some ****) of 200lbs+.

You know I've been appreciative of Duran's skills (even if I think Ike Williams handles him, at least in the initial encounter; but we've been there before). In fact, he's long been one of my favourites. Duran holds the place in my head for 'most aesthetically and functionally perfect' for the Palomino performance. Not many can rival Duran's level of skill around that time. Jose Napoles and Archie Moore pulled off some stuff at the same level but not as consistently in one fight. Saying that, I don't know now, but either way, Duran's skills were truly elite.

Add those to a man who skips from a crouch and you have one of the best ever.

Rewriting history I'd start Duran in 1940 in a time zone more suited to his tenacity. I'd see his record take a beating but have faith in him pulling out a case for the #1, ever.

Duran in the 40s... against LWs and WWs and fighting middles in the 50s. That looks a thread. Funny thing is, he's have Arcel and Brown anyway.

I count Duran as a great composite puncher, but Moore is out of his reach.

"Skips from a crouch"--? A la Dempsey? Would you mind explaining that a bit? It's an interesting point.

Well, there is something to be said about the motivation that sprang from New Orleans. But for that, Duran may not have ever cared enough to even get up for those grandiose later accomplishments. And a man who still fights at 50 is a man either still trying prove something or outlive something. Of course, the fact that he couldn't control his wife's gambling may have had something to do with it too...

Moore with a chin or perhaps just in a different era would have been a world-beater. I see him as boxing's greatest spokesman of all time -better than Ali. MUCH better, in fact.

I like your views about the convergence where Moore's experience met his skill in the early 50s. I would add to it though, with a specific. I'm convinced that Moore was the monster created by Murderers Row. He and Burley have the best records against them (and I count them as follows: Burley, Jack Chase, Holman, Cocoa Kid, Lytell, Marshall, Wade, Booker... not Sheppard and Ez and and Bivins and Billy Smith, and not Moore) and Moore was twice the fighter when he came out of those wars than he was when he went in. Their ferocity is attested to by the fact that as late as '50, he was still struggling against one of them anyway.

I would agree with what seems to be your belief that Duran's skill matched Moore's. His powers of persuasion didn't, but when we consider that Ray Arcel and Freddie Brown -who knew more combined than Moore -emptied their heads into Duran, well, there you have it. Duran's athleticism, which was greater than Moore's shoves him ahead: Curbstone chin, very good speed and rxn time, one punch KO capability that was hurting some rather large guys late in fights and late in his career, and let's not forget agility. I think Duran was nearer a complete fighter than damn near anyone. But more had more character.... Duran's off-season gluttony hurt him and his legacy. He was also something of a headcase. Kinda like James Toney in his tendency to be a fat headcase. Imagine if Duran had the discipline of Hagler? He'd have been GREB-like.

As to his power at Middle -Robbie Sims told a close friend of mine that after he fought Duran, "experts" would comment that Duran didn't hit so hard at middle. Sims was like, "believe me, you just don't know."

I could and would put up a real fight with any knock on Duran-Barkley (despite the fact that I reject any notion that it was for a "championship." Duran beat a top contender who was beastly and thus took some vicarious revenge on Hearns. That suffices!). And I disagree with all my heart that Hagler-Duran is overrated (no one has named another lightweight frame that could take Hagler 15. Pernell? That makes me giggle.)

Anyway, I see Moore and Duran as P4P Peers for different reasons. When you consider a totality of measures -some favoring one, some favoring the other, I lean toward Duran but have no beef with Moore pulling ahead.

This excellent post says a lot of my thoughts on this matter (especially the bit about any other lightweight who could go the distance with Marvin Hagler) - Duran amazes just amazes me - the fact that he fought professionally in 5 different decades between 119 pounds and 176 pounds including against certain guys who would actually venture into the heavyweight division themselves on occasion - it staggering really - even though his win loss ratio with the top guys of the eras he spanned may be a bit 50/50 - great wins over the likes of Buchanan, De Jesus, Viruet, RAY LEONARD (!!), Cuevas, Davey Moore, IRAN BARKLEY (!), etc etc. Losses by decision to Benitez, Laing, HAGLER (!), Paz, Macho and the devastating loss to Tommy Hitman Hearns and the shocker in the Leonard No mas rematch but Duran was amazing and my favourite fighter a a kid so I'm probably a bit biased

Duran was, of course, amazing. But in that category he's out done by Moore.

You can argue Duran's placement above; but it will be on peak ability.

Moore had the **** beaten out of him by Booker, Chase, Charles and was knocked out by Morrow. By 1948 after an already grueling career, having mixed it up multiple times with the entire Murderer's Row and anyone else who wanted to be part of it, at age thirty two, who would have expected Moore to go on a 54-2-1 streak, win the light heavyweight title and express superiority over such a quality contemporary as Harold Johnson?

Then he was knocked out by Marciano, Patterson and Ali. Although actually, if we excuse Moore for being shopworn and in his forties, apart from those younger, Hall of Fame heavyweights, Moore only lost once from 1956 until his retirement, going 40-1 and avenging that loss. During that time he was still beating rated heavyweights in between draining himself to defend his light heavyweight crown.

****, even in his late forties Moore held a prime Willie Pastrano to a draw.

Ah, no, I meant Duran's ability to squat up and down while skipping rope. A sure sign of his agility and overall physical prowess.

On punching, I think his body work was truly elite. Maybe the best I've seen for precision.

To be better than Robinson at skipping rope, that's outlandish.

Body punching, yes. For me it was how easily he combined offense with defense after laying a trap. Simultaneous offense/defense is high level stuff. Duran did it seamlessly.

And of course I love his little tricks -the Fitzsimmons shift, and Brown's thumb prints (like how he'd miss a left hook, step right, and then pivot into a right cross). Add his being a bad-ass (one of the best in boxing this side of LaMotta). When he was forced back into the ropes by Barkley and then sprang off of them with a 4 punch-combination -that stuff stays with you.

Duran was, of course, amazing. But in that category he's out done by Moore.

You can argue Duran's placement above; but it will be on peak ability.

Moore had the **** beaten out of him by Booker, Chase, Charles and was knocked out by Morrow. By 1948 after an already grueling career, having mixed it up multiple times with the entire Murderer's Row and anyone else who wanted to be part of it, at age thirty two, who would have expected Moore to go on a 54-2-1 streak, win the light heavyweight title and express superiority over such a quality contemporary as Harold Johnson?

Then he was knocked out by Marciano, Patterson and Ali. Although actually, if we excuse Moore for being shopworn and in his forties, apart from those younger, Hall of Fame heavyweights, Moore only lost once from 1956 until his retirement, going 40-1 and avenging that loss. During that time he was still beating rated heavyweights in between draining himself to defend his light heavyweight crown.

****, even in his late forties Moore held a prime Willie Pastrano to a draw.

Good post made better by the views by many that Moore should have gotten the duke over Pastrano! Moore did the chasing and the punching, Pastrano did the holding. A consensus of boxing writers polled at ringside believed it. The AP had it 8-2 Moore

Good post made better by the views by many that Moore should have gotten the duke over Pastrano! Moore did the chasing and the punching, Pastrano did the holding. A consensus of boxing writers polled at ringside believed it. The AP had it 8-2 Moore

Yep. Moore's later title defences were nothing to write home about, but he is excused for:

a) Defending against Johnson and Maxim previously
b) Having to drain himself every time
c) Being old
d) Drawing with (and like you said, beating) Pastrano as late as 1962